Sayter

"This according to researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University in England, who said that as Instagram and YouTube have become more popular methods to share art, fewer young people are taking to the streets to make a name for themselves. In other words, kids these days are less Banksy and more Selena."

Banksy is being used to represent graffiti. Selena is being used to represent Instagram. Selena Gomez is the more reasonable assumption than Selena Quintanilla to represent Instagram since Selena Gomez has the most Instagram followers for any user.

3,410,682 (from reddit.com/about) is the number of logged in accounts yesterday, not last month.

Nathan's comment sounded like a genuine suggestion: the focus is on her to be able to utilize an alternative. With yours, the focus is on we'd "love to feature you." Sounds so much more self-serving, and also like impersonal marketing copy. Though, as with you, I cannot speak for the whole crowd.

"Etherpad is an Open Source online editor providing collaborative editing in really real-time powered by Node.js" (from your link)

The system partition on the Nexue One is only 145 MB.

It doesn't seem to be clear beforehand from "you'll be able to choose from the following area codes" whether you can pick the full number (vanity number), or just the area code and having the rest of the number being randomly assigned (similar to how telecoms usually give numbers).

I also almost signed up, but decided against it over the lack of clarity.

Your thought exercise of $1 million turning into $17.2 trillion via 5% over 200 years only works if none of the money (including any of the interest) is ever touched or spent. It is an unrealistic assumption that ignores the complexities of reality.

Here are their recent financial reports if you're interested: http://www.rothschild.com/about_rothschild/financial_reports...

Rakuten was chosen because that's the company that purchased buy.com in 2010. They're basically the Amazon of Japan.

Given that Kleenex is just "Clean-X" and Xerox is just "Xero(graphy)-X" (they were known as Haloid before commercializing xerography and rebranding), those two names are actually just an "X" away from being generic.

iPad 3rd gen was released in March with retina. iPad 4th gen was released in November (alongside the mini) and added a Lightning connector.

WebKit was initially developed (as a fork of KHTML) by Apple, not Google. It is open source, though.

Given that CompUSA was purchased by TigerDirect, it would still qualify as an example that fits the article's narrative of physical retailers succumbing to online retailers.

Saying that online viruses can be solved if everyone practices better password management is like saying that offline viruses can be solved if everyone practices better hygiene management.

It's a great idea in theory, but the execution is the trick.

That's precisely why Facebook purchased Instagram.

HTC is not Android's "biggest vendor." Samsung Telecommunications has more device sales, more revenues, and more profit than HTC.

Nexus devices are the reference devices that were supposed to be used by developers: at the Google I/O conference, each attendee received a Nexus 7, Nexus Q, and Galaxy Nexus (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228585/Google_gives_...). If you have a different opinion of what Android "reference devices" are, then provide them for evaluations by the denizens of Hacker News (of which includes a number of Google employees).

It is not necessary to "ask yourself who the real profit makers are," because the revenue numbers for HTC and Samsung are available to the public. The numbers state that Samsung is alreaduy generating more profit than HTC by a significant margin. Samsung's numbers have been increasing. HTC's numbers have been decreasing. Here are some articles that perfectly summarize the point:

"[HTC] posted its third consecutive drop in profit after cutting its revenue forecast amid competition from Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Co." (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-06/htc-second-quart...)

"Soaring sales of smartphones lifted Samsung Electronics Co.'s profit to a company record in the first quarter and executives said that a new model hitting dealers next month will fuel its financial results during the second." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230472330457736...)

Google made only $550 million from Android between 2008 and 2011 according to figures from the Oracle trial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/29/google-earn...), compared to $38 billion in total revenues for 2011. While half a billion over three years is not trivial, it is rather insignificant compared to $38 billion over one year for search advertising. Trefis analysis of Google's stock price estimates the value of non-Motorola Google Phone properties at 2.38% of their total stock value (http://www.trefis.com/company?hm=GOOG.trefis#/GOOG/n-1336?fr...). To use Warren Buffet terms (as per an analysis by Bill Gurley via Erick Schonfeld), Android is not Google's castle, it's their moat. (http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat). The point of Android (and to a lesser extent, Chrome OS) isn't to generate revenue itself but to protect search revenue (if, for example, iOS were to switch to Bing by default). Given that Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer had stated in 2010, that iOS's App Store ran at about the breakeven point, and was therefore not a significant source of revenue for Apple, (http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/01/26/app_store_wildly_s...) it is not wholly unbelievable that Google Play would also be an insignificant source of revenue for Google (especially given the ratio of free apps to paid apps is higher on Google Play than on the App Store).

As for HTC: "HTC Corp. said Friday its unaudited second-quarter net profit fell 58% from a year earlier, as the Taiwanese smartphone maker struggles to compete with industry leaders Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. HTC said in a statement its unaudited net profit for the three months ended June 30 was $7.40 billion New Taiwan dollars ($247 million), down from NT$17.52 billion a year earlier. Its revenue dropped 27% to NT$91.0 billion from NT$124.40 billion." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230414120457751...).

You are also incorrect about HTC manufacturing the reference devices. While they did make the Google Nexus One, the Google Nexus S was Samsung, the Google Galaxy Nexus was Samsung, the Motorola Xoom was technically the Honeycomb reference device (read as: Nexus), and the Google Nexus 7 is Asus. In other words, HTC has manufactured only one of the five Nexus devices (out of six if you count the Nexus Q). To assert that HTC is generating profit "because they manufacture the reference devices" is inaccurate given that the Nexus One was released in 2010 and no longer sold through first party sources such as Google Play (the devices available for purchase at the time of this writing are the Galaxy Nexus, the Nexus 7, and the Nexus Q).

There is, however, someone making a profit off of Android: Samsung. From the same article: "In stark contrast to HTC's weak earnings, Samsung said earlier Friday that it will likely post a record quarterly operating profit for the second quarter that ended June 30. The South Korean electronics giant, which is due to release audited results later this month, expects an operating profit of between 6.5 trillion won ($5.7 billion) and 6.9 trillion won for the quarter, compared with 3.75 trillion won a year earlier." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230414120457751...)

TLDR: The assertion that Google and HTC are (significantly) profiting from Android is incorrect and instead should assert that Samsung is the only one making (significant) profits from Android.

Google Chrome has 310 million active users (according to Google at their I/O conference in June). In the Chrome Web Store, AdBlock is listed as having 9.3 million users, and Adblock Plus is listed as having 4.9 million users.

Mozilla Firefox had 270 million users in 2009, and presumably has less than Chrome's 310 million now (given their smaller market share). Adblock Plus is listed as having 14 million users on Mozilla Addons.

While it's entire possible (and indeed, likely) that these numbers are not completely accurate, it's also unlikely that they are outside of the ballmark (so to speak). For example, saying that Adblock usage numbers are off by half (that is to say that the usage would be closer to ~30 million than ~15 million), it would still only mean that 10% of Chrome and Firefox users choose to utilize the most popular Adblock choice(s).

It's true that 10% or even 5% of users can be considered "a large portion" (due to the unquantified nature of the statement), but it also would not form a strong basis for confirming the assertion that "No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than before" (on the basis of Adblock usage by the general population).

What defines the natural lifespan of a product?

Apple from the mid-1990's to present. CEO John Sculley had been instructed in 1993 to sell the company (unsuccessfully, to AT&T, IBM, etc.), before getting fired. He refers to the time as Apple's "near-death experience." In 1997, Steve Jobs returned to the company via NeXT and Microsoft invested a severely needed $150 million. Without those two events happening, it is highly possible that Apple would not still exist today (let alone being the most valued technology company in the world). That's about as radical of turnaround as possible.

I impulse purchased one because it's a $100 Android console. The "hackable / open hardware" aspect was honestly irrelevant in terms of the purchase decision, as a $100 closed hardware console by Sony (Android-based) / Apple (iOS-based) / Microsoft (WP7-based) would have received the same "shut up and take my money" response (at least in my case, and that's said as a person with a Galaxy Nexus phone). It's likely that this view is not unique, so be careful about mistaking the market as validating a "hackable open hardware $100 gaming console" and not simply a "$100 gaming console."

iPad 1 = iPad 2010. iPad 2 = iPad 2011. iPad 3 = iPad 2012.

iPhone = iPhone 2007. iPhone 3G = iPhone 2008. iPhone 3GS = iPhone 2009. iPhone 4 = iPhone 2010. iPhone 4S = iPhone 2011. "iPhone 5" = iPhone 2012.

Even if Apple were to never refer to them by those names, it's such an obvious naming convention (so far) that it's surprising that so many people are missing it.

Orkut was a Google project from Orkut Büyükkökten's 20% time.

The cheapest ultrabook on Newegg is the Acer Aspire S3 at $799. That's nowhere near 1/3rd of the price of a MacBook Air.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE...

That is what I was insinuating.

If that's the case, then how does that explain SOPA? Take the two primary backers, the MPAA and RIAA: 2010 revenue for the movie industry in the United States was about $10B, while the 2010 revenue for the music industry was approximately less than or equal to that figure (RIAA's FAQ suggests $7.7B in 2009). Compare that to tech companies: Apple alone had $28.57B in the Q3 of this year (to say nothing of yearly revenue). Certainly revenue does not equal profits or market share, but the point should still be made: one technology company is arguably larger than both the movie and music industries in the United States. If the matter were as simple as money equaling laws, then SOPA should never have seen the light of day.

Fair enough.

That's not ironic. Irony occurs when the outcome is opposite of what actions intended. If many people enter biology and related areas precisely because they dislike math, then the expectation would be that math-related areas of the field (such as statistics) would suffer as a result. Irony (in this case) would be if people entered biology because they dislike math, but then biology as a field ended up being stronger in statistics than the more mathematically inclined fields.

Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer stated that "We run the App Store just a little over breakeven" during a shareholder meeting earlier this year. An analyst from Citibank estimated that the App Store would account for $2B in yearly revenue for 2011. Compare that to the $24.67B revenue that Apple had in Q2 of 2011 alone, and that puts the App Store at approximately 2% of Apple's yearly gross revenue. Also, a Trefis analysis of $AAPL puts iTunes and iOS Apps at a combined 4.3% share of the stock's perceived value. While the App Store does provide the ecosystem that allows the iPhone and iPad to thrive, it does not act as a significant revenue source for Apple.

I used to use GoDaddy as my primary registrar years ago when they were essentially the only company offering domains under $10, back when $35 was the market norm. I decided to go test them again after reading your comment. I still have an account, so the comparison would be relatively fair. This was my experience, as compared to my usual registrar.

Name.com 1. Search domain name. 2. Click to add the .com to my cart. 3. Click to continue to my cart. 4. Login. 5. Click to pay with saved information. Done.

GoDaddy 1. Search domain name. 2. Click to add the .com to my cart. 3. In page popup with "STOP! Don't miss your chance to SAVE 65!" (for the net, org, info). Spammy. Click "Don't show this again." I just want a domain. 4. Default registration length was listed as 5 years. This is unacceptable. Click to change to 1 year. Just give me the domain. 5. Click next to arrive at privacy options. No, I just want a domain. 6. Click next to arrive at activate your domain, with email and hosting options. I don't care, I just want a domain. 7. Click next to arrive at my cart.

At this point, GoDaddy has already lost. I can have a confirmation email from Name.com in my inbox by the time I arrive at GoDaddy's billing information. GoDaddy does have a huge market: people that are new to buying domains and would like to see all the available options. Another registrar is preferable once you know your way around and just want a domain.

Guess which market reads Hacker News.